Joe Friel's Blog is for the serious endurance athlete who wants to stay current on the science and art of training for sport. Here you will find Joe Friel's thoughts and ideas before they are published anywhere else. You may also visit www.TrainingBible.com for more detailed and free content. Joe's training plans are available at www.TrainingPeaks.com.

April 2013

04/24/2013

Earlier this month I reported on a study of block
periodization that found it superior to a traditional (linear) periodization model. This
study lasted 4 weeks with well-trained cyclists in the two groups (Block and Traditional
periodization) doing the same workouts. The only difference was that the Block
group did 5 of the 8 high intensity training sessions (HIT) in the first week
and then only 1 HIT per week in the following 3 weeks. The Traditional group
did 2 HIT each week. They both also did low intensity training (LIT).

The results were rather remarkable. The Block group had an
increase in VO2max of 4.6%, peak power at VO2max rose 2.1%, and their power at
approximately their aerobic thresholds rose a whopping 10%. There were no
changes for the Traditional periodization group, which seems strange but may
tell us that 4 weeks of traditional periodization is not enough to stimulate
significant change. Perhaps.

So along comes a 12-week follow-up study from the same Norwegian group of researchers at Lillehammer University. They
used the same study design only did the above 4-week mesocycle 3 times for
each group. The results were even more remarkable. I’ll come back to that
shortly. But first let’s take a look at what the researchers called “high” and
“low” intensity workouts.

Using heart rate monitors, all workouts were divided into
three zones:

Zone 1 60-82% of max HR (MHR)

Zone 2 83-87% of MHR

Zone 3 88-100% of MHR

At 82% of MHR an athlete is usually in the vicinity of their
lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR), the point at which heavy breathing begins
and is marked by the sensation of being “redlined.” Some athletes’ LTHRs are at
a higher percentage of MHR and some are lower. (This is why I recommend LTHR
rather than MHR for setting up heart rate zones; it’s simply a more accurate
way of defining the most critical heart rate intensity for serious athletes.)

All of the cyclists (15 well-trained riders) in this study
did LIT in zone 1. Their HIT was in zone 3. These HIT sessions are critical to
understanding this study as these are more than likely what produced the
remarkable results.

All HIT was done as intervals. They did either 6 x 5 minutes
at zone 3 with 2.5-minute recoveries, or 5 x 6 minutes at zone 3 with 3-minute
recoveries. So they totaled 30 minutes of zone 3 in a single session. These are killer workouts. Extremely hard. If you
use my heart rate zone system, their zone 3 is the equivalent of my high zone 5b
and zone 5c. In other words, the athletes were doing intervals at right around
their VO2max. Other research has shown that well-trained cyclists can only maintain their VO2max velocity for
about 3 to 5 minutes. VO2max velocity and VO2max heart rate aren’t exactly the
same thing but I think it safe to say that each interval was nearly a max
effort. And the recoveries were very brief. For a VO2max interval I usually
assign a recovery after each that is about the same duration as the preceding
high-intensity piece. Here they did recoveries that were only half as long.

I wouldn’t recommend doing such a workout, let alone 5 times
in a week as the Block athletes did in this study. I can imagine how difficult
it must have been for the subjects to finish each subsequent session in the 5
HIT-session weeks (in weeks 1, 5 and 9).

But the results were, indeed, impressive. And as may be
expected, the numbers were higher than with the 4-week study I reviewed above.
In this more recent research VO2max for the Block athletes rose on average 8.8%
compared with 3.7% for the Traditional group. Power at 2mmol/L lactate (about aerobic
threshold) rose 22% for Block and 10% for Traditional. They also did a
40-minute time trial to see what average power they could produce. The Block
athletes’ rose 8.2% while the Traditionals’ went up 4.1%. The difference
between these time trial results was insignificant.

The protocol used for the Block group in both of these studies is similar to
what is sometimes called “crash” training as described in my Triathlete’s Training Bible, Cyclist’s Training Bible, and Mountain Biker’s Training Bible books. In this extreme training strategy, workload is greatly increased for
several days followed by several days of reduced training. This has been shown
to stimulate significant changes in fitness, but the risks are also extreme.
You can read more about it in my books.

This is an excellent study as research on periodization of
endurance athletes is rare. There are only a few as most use weight lifting as
their sport focus. And the fact that this one lasted 12 weeks also makes it
exceptional. The downside of all periodization studies is what I mentioned in
my last piece on the subject—both the subjects and the researchers know who is
following which protocol. That always introduces the placebo effect as a
variable.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that block periodization is
superior to traditional (linear) periodization for the advanced athlete. By “advanced” what I mean is someone who
has been training seriously and consistently for years, has attained a very
high level of performance, and is so close to their potential that producing
greater fitness improvements is extremely difficult to do. Most professional
endurance athletes and elite age group athletes fall into this category. They
would more than likely benefit from a block periodization program—if they know
how to do it. It’s not as simple as it seems from these studies and requires
careful planning to pull off.

Athletes who are not what I am calling advanced here are
still better off following a more traditional periodization program as
described in my books. For them a block plan may well produce a loss of fitness
since the training emphasis is focused on only one or two abilities in each
mesocycle.

Crash training may be done by either group but must be used
with caution as it can easily result in injury, illness and burnout. Again,
read more about it in my Training Bible books before attempting it.

04/11/2013

I was asked twice this week how I taper athletes for their
A-priority races, once by an athlete and also by a coach. I told them that I
would write about it in my blog, but later realized I had already done so several
times. So rather than do it all over again I’ll just provide the links to four posts on the topic. I’ll also summarize
each so you can pick out the one that best matches your interests, should you
want to read about it (click on the title to go to the post).

In this post from 2009 you will find an explanation of the
three elements of race preparedness – fitness, fatigue and form. This is
essential to understanding what’s happening when you peak properly. It goes on
to describe the basics of the peaking process through the interplay of
intensity and rest/recovery with an emphasis on the latter.

This post is also from 2009 and is a follow up to the one
above providing graphic illustrations of how I taper and peak athletes. This
will make much more sense if you use a power meter (bike) or speed-distance
device (run) along with the Performance Management Chart (PMC) at TrainingPeaks or WKO+
software.
The two charts show the actual peaking design for a road cyclist and an Ironman
triathlete.

As the title implies, this very short piece uses two of the
athletes I coached in 2010 – a 70.3 triathlete and a road cyclist – to compare
graphically how their bike power was distributed by training zones as they went
through their final preparations for their A races.

If you search for “peaking” on the home page of my blog you’ll find much more detail on peaking including topics such as
projecting race readiness, strong and weak form, and peak performance
predictors.

04/04/2013

One of my favorite pastimes is reading sports science
research. Most days start with me grabing an abstract from the top of my to-be-read list and seeing what’s new. I know,
I’m weird that way. But I expect we are each strange in some way. My weirdness occasionally pays off. Recently I came across some new studies on topics I’ve
written about before – compression clothing and block periodization. Here are
some research updates.

Compression clothing

I first wrote on compression clothing in October 2007 after seeing so many athletes in the Hawaii Ironman wearing them in the race
that year. They continue to be used extensively in many endurance sports. There
wasn’t much in the research literature on them then, and over the years only a
little has been added. I’ve continued to follow the topic and done updates
periodically (March 2009, February 2011, May 2011). Here are two more recent studies followed by comments.

Fourteen
male triathletes were divided into two test groups. One group wore a full
leg-length compression stockings and the other a similar looking non-compression
garment continuously for 24 hours after a 40k time trial. Following the day of
recovery while wearing the stockings they took them off and once again did the
40k TT. One week later the groups reversed the clothing worn and repeated the
entire 40k time trial-24 hours of recovery wearing the socks-40k time trial
protocol.

After
wearing the compression stockings performance time in the second time trial
improved, on average, by 1.2% and average power increased 3.3% compared with
wearing the non-compression stockings. The athletes’ rating of perceived
exertion during the subsequent tests did not change significantly.

This is a review of the existing literature on the effect of
compression garments on performance and recovery. The review found little
change in performance while wearing the garments, but they noted improvements
in recovery when the subjects wore them.

My opinion on compression clothing has not changed since I
first wrote about them five years ago. I doubt there is a significant
improvement in performance while wearing them. In a triathlon, the time to put
them on in T1 is probably greater than any time gained while wearing them. But
there may be a post-workout benefit that could speed recovery prior to the next
workout or race. I’ll keep watching for this topic in the literature and let
you know what I find.

Block periodization

Back in 2011 I described a relatively new way of organizing training
time for advanced athletes called “block periodization” (here, here and here). In block periodization the athlete focuses on only one or two aspects of
fitness (what I call “abilities:” aerobic endurance, muscular force, speed
skills, muscular endurance, anaerobic endurance and sprint power) within a
block lasting for a short time – usually three to six weeks. As explained in
the above previous blog posts, block periodization is intended only for
advanced athletes. Moderately trained athletes are best advised to follow a
linear (“classic “or “traditional”) periodization plan as described in my
Training Bible books.

There is very little research done on periodization and that
which is available usually uses strength athletes as subjects. Such studies of
endurance athletes are rare. But here is one that is a recent update on the
topic of periodization.

Nineteen experienced and fit cyclists were divided into two
groups for this Norwegian study comparing block and traditional periodization.
Each group trained for 4 weeks and did 8, high-intensity interval sessions and
otherwise low-intensity aerobic training. Their training volume, both for high-
and low-intensity workouts, was the same over the 4 weeks. The only difference
was how the weeks were structured.

The 10 riders following the block periodization protocol did
5 of their 8 interval sessions in the first week and then only one each in the
last 3 weeks (along with the low-intensity sessions). This concentration on only
one ability for a brief period of time followed by maintenance is common in
block periodization.

The other group of cyclists who followed the traditional
periodization plan spread the 8 intense workouts over the 4 weeks doing 2 each
week along with the low-intensity sessions on the other days.

So what was the result? Those following a block
periodization program improved their VO2max (one physiological indicator of
aerobic fitness) by 4.6% (+/-3.7%). This group started with an average VO2max
of 62.2 mLO2/kg/minute so they bumped the average up to just over 65. Their
peak power at VO2max increased by 2.1% (+/-2.8%). And this group elevated their
power at 2mmol/L of lactate (approximately their aerobic thresholds, similar to
low zone 2) by 10% (+/-12%). The traditional periodization group saw no significant
changes in these same metrics.

The block periodization group’s numbers are all remarkable
given that the gains would have almost certainly been attained in just the
first week with only 5 hard workouts. That makes me wonder. One of the problems
with such a study is that it isn’t possible to use a double-blind protocol in
which neither the subjects nor the researchers know who is following which
protocol. This raises the question of a placebo effect. But also note that some
of the block periodization subjects had decreases in both their VO2max (-0.7%)
and aerobic threshold (-2%) power. That’s a good sign in a way as it confirms
what happens in the real world – some positively respond to the protocol and
some get worse. It happens in nearly all aspects of training. Such is life.

So far the few studies I’ve seen on the topic have indicated
that there may be good reasons for advanced and highly fit athletes to follow a
block periodization program. If you fall into this rather small club be sure to
read my other blog posts listed above before making such significant changes to
your training.